So what does D&D make of this? Rush is a conservative talking head, and has been blasted by people for words of his that were taken out of context.
Unfortunately for Limbaugh, that's a transparent lie on his part. His argument was that he was talking about a single, literal phony soldier- but in the actual broadcast, he doesn't mention that guy until nearly two minutes after the "phony soldiers" (emphasis mine) remark.
He posted a doctored transcript on his website to "clear things up", which really doesn't help his credibility. At this stage he and his fellow right wing pundits have just shouted "Taken out of context!" as loud as they can without providing the context or proving their case. They just go on the attack against the "liberal media."
If you've been taken out of context, all you have to do is provide the context...
Media Matters has the whole sad saga on their website. And I don't care if you've been told their some kind of radical leftist organization, because all you need to do is read the actual Limbaugh transcript or listen to the record of that broadcast to see all the in-context douchebaggery of calling war veteran war critics phony soldiers.
Rush Limbaugh and the Right-wing pundits helped transform my father into an uncompassionate warmongering man.
This. Right here. My father has been listening to Limbaugh for many of his waking hours every day for the past few years.
It is impossible to engage him on any topic Rush has an opinion on.
The good thing about people like these, their opinion is easily swayed. Just not by you. The last three people they've heard speak on TV will dictate their opinion. If you manage to replace Limbaugh with a less extreme conservative or even a right-leaning moderate, their opinions will shift fairly readily. I'm completely certain that if you had complete control over what they saw on TV and the radio, you could have them lining up early to see Michael Moore's next movie inside of a year.
I get what you're saying, but that sort of statement is what leads to a lot of people to Limbaugh. He's accused the left of not wanting to debate ideas, just silence the opposition.
It can *easily* be misconstrued to "We're going to tell you what you should hear and think for your own good" or "You're so simple-minded, impressionable, and childlike in your opinions that we'll form them for you" sort of elitism that solidifies the steryotype of the arrogant, controlling "Big Brother" elitist-intellectual liberal in the same way that talk of censoring TV/radio/music leads to the right wing fundie "shove Jesus down your throat" steryotype.
Liberal talk radio exists, but has failed. Asking why is a better route to go, IMHO.
Some people just like low taxes, the U.S.A., traditional famelies, and their faith and don't like seeing them unfairly critiscized. Some people don't want to hand controll of 1/7th of the economy over to governmental control (Health care) when it's shown it can't handle what it does control. Some people don't like seeing their kids sexualized.
Some people see the "socialist dream" in eruope and see a stagnant, dying society strangled with high-taxes and overregulation; childless and aging to the point where they won't have enough workers to pay taxes for their hideously expensive and unsustainable social welfare state. Some people don't get why the president of Iran is applauded by self-proclaimed liberals, when the punishment for homoexuality is death in Iran (why laugh at his "no gays in Iran statement? they die, if discovered!), while those who think gay marriage is a no-go are attacked more viciously.
They're not ignorant to think so. These are valid questions and concerns and should be addressed, not ignored.
Some people know that big business will fuck us all in the ass if health care continues this way.
Where the hell do people get that business is some kind of compassionate entity?
And boohoo, playing the persecuted right-winger card is so lame.
People aren't ignoring "the valid questions and concerns" if they are telling you how retarded some of the neo-conservative views are. Ignoring and speaking against are two different things.
Some people just like low taxes, the U.S.A., traditional famelies, and their faith and don't like seeing them unfairly critiscized. Some people don't want to hand controll of 1/7th of the economy over to governmental control (Health care) when it's shown it can't handle what it does control. Some people don't like seeing their kids sexualized.
That doesn't explain why they like to listen to right-wing radio - specifically, why they like to listen to people saying things they agree with without any substantive criticism.
The Sean Hannity Show, the Rush Limbaugh Show, and the Michael Savage show are each three hours long. So either people are tuning in for the full three hours - which means they manage to get three hours of entertainment per day out of hearing somebody bitch about liberals - or they're just tuning in for a few minutes on their commute to or from work, which means they just want their pundit fix and don't really care about what's going on in the news.
So either they get the actual current event content, which means they're listening for a few hours and assumably entertained by the large proportion of "hur hur liberals are at it again" between news stories, or they don't care about the current event content and just want a few moments of "hur hur liberals" before getting to work.
Reading a blog like DailyKos means you're looking for an update on issues that are important to liberals. It's not really the same thing. You can find out updates on the latest political funding scandal, or the latest Republican who lied on TV, or what-not. There's actual content that you can rapidly digest over a cup of coffee. Yeah, it's self-affirmation, but it's not three hours daily of self-affirmation.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I find the use of "Rush Limbaugh" as shorthand for despicable right-wing radio amusing. He's by far the least obnoxious of the right-wing radio hosts. Listen to him for a week then listen to Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or G. Gordon Liddy. The latter four will make you want to claw your own brain out the front of your face just to end the pain.
What, no Dennis Miller fans here? I listen to him on the way home, he has a very dry way of looking at things.
Yeah, it's self-affirmation, but it's not three hours daily of self-affirmation.
Jesus fucking Christ, I didn't know those shows went on that long. I used to think Orwell's Two Minute Hate was implausible, but it seems like all you have to do is put people in cars...
It isn't so much the self-affirmation that is the problem (well, still a problem) but it's the gross distortion of "the other side" that bugs me. When you have people like widowson genuinely believe what they're saying about the liberal agenda is a true, accurate and fair.
Which is, frankly, tragic.
The DailyKos, et al, get a little hysterical about "fascism" sometimes, but if you ignore all the emotional ranting and go straight for the substantive blogs, you'll find a more fact based, level-headed, even fair minded, observation of the opposing side than you'll find on the Right.
Oh dip. Rush is a liar and a douchebag. Then he retcons to cover up his lie.
Yeah that pretty much cleared it up for me. Thanks.
edit: At least the $2 mil is going to something.
In respect to say... the full story, here's the full transcript.
And here's video of his response the next day. It includes an edited audio segment that includes the call where he said phony soldiers (he edited out the unrelated comment and his response regarding WMD's) and the statement where he describes the "phony soldier" he says he was talking about (which came immediately after the WMD comments that are edited out of that audio segment - you can follow along with the text transcript if you're confused - like Mr. Olbermann apparently was)
All that said, damn. He's ponying up an a matching 2.1 mil for the MC-LEF. So to me, the letter = lolz. Good results all around
Edit: Added link to video of his response the next day.
The only "liberal pundit" I get a kick out of is Olbermann. But I don't really care what his political opinions are. I like him for the same reason I like Stewart and Colbert, he points out corrupt and evil shit in politics and media. I think that's why Papa Bear is so popular, except he points out shit that doesn't really scale well against the things he supports. He supports the Iraq war but when two fags enter a church and goof around it's a crisis.
Oh dip. Rush is a liar and a douchebag. Then he retcons to cover up his lie.
Yeah that pretty much cleared it up for me. Thanks.
edit: At least the $2 mil is going to something.
In respect to say... the full story, here's the full transcript.
You do know that Rush put up a doctored transcript, right? That is not the full one or the original.
Rush put up a "doctored" AUDIO transcript. That was supposed to be the second link I posted. But I failed. And just closed the page. Hang on a sec, I'll get a link for it.
And , here's media matters talking about the AUDIO clip on this. They obviously put a negative spin on it, but look at the part edited out. And the rest of the words. OMG, they seem to be exactly the same as that text transcript I posted.
Oh dip. Rush is a liar and a douchebag. Then he retcons to cover up his lie.
Yeah that pretty much cleared it up for me. Thanks.
edit: At least the $2 mil is going to something.
In respect to say... the full story, here's the full transcript.
You do know that Rush put up a doctored transcript, right? That is not the full one or the original.
Rush put up a "doctored" AUDIO transcript. That was the second link I posted. You may have read some text after that link. It kinda explained that. GG.
In fact, here's media matters talking about the AUDIO clip on this. They obviously put a negative spin on it, but look at the part edited out. And the rest of the words. OMG, they seem to be exactly the same as that text transcript I posted.
Forgive me for assuming mindless dittohead behavior on your part.
He's a douchebag and clearly said that any soldiers who were against the war weren't real soldiers, because, you know, they thought for themselves instead of listening to the words the Right fed to them.
On the other hand, Limbaugh also has that right to free speech like every one of us. Douchebag or not, he probably was within his right to do that.
So in closing- douchebag, but he has the right to say what he wants as well as the soldiers.
I'll say this again - freedom of speech is not freedom from the repercussions of speech. Yes, Rush has every right to say what he wants. But that doesn't mean he can't get called on his bullshit.
The problem I see it though, is that they're not really calling him on his bullshit though. They're not stepping up to the plate and engaging him about it. To me, the letter seems to be nothing more than a glorified petition saying "hey you shouldn't say that" And given enough people who agree Suddenly we don't really have the freedom to say that. Or in other words, at what point do the repercussions of speech get so extensive where its really no different from saying "nope, you don't have the freedom to say that"
not that I'm saying that's what's happening here. I'm just attempting to take these repercussions to their logical, but extreme conclusion.
Oh dip. Rush is a liar and a douchebag. Then he retcons to cover up his lie.
Yeah that pretty much cleared it up for me. Thanks.
edit: At least the $2 mil is going to something.
In respect to say... the full story, here's the full transcript.
You do know that Rush put up a doctored transcript, right? That is not the full one or the original.
Rush put up a "doctored" AUDIO transcript. That was supposed to be the second link I posted. But I failed. And just closed the page. Hang on a sec, I'll get a link for it.
And , here's media matters talking about the AUDIO clip on this. They obviously put a negative spin on it, but look at the part edited out. And the rest of the words. OMG, they seem to be exactly the same as that text transcript I posted.
Why is congress wasting time with shit like this? seriously? our government has nothing better to do than worry about what some moron said on air? Holy shit.
I'd rather them be doing this than actively hurting us.
He's a douchebag and clearly said that any soldiers who were against the war weren't real soldiers, because, you know, they thought for themselves instead of listening to the words the Right fed to them.
On the other hand, Limbaugh also has that right to free speech like every one of us. Douchebag or not, he probably was within his right to do that.
So in closing- douchebag, but he has the right to say what he wants as well as the soldiers.
I'll say this again - freedom of speech is not freedom from the repercussions of speech. Yes, Rush has every right to say what he wants. But that doesn't mean he can't get called on his bullshit.
The problem I see it though, is that they're not really calling him on his bullshit though. They're not stepping up to the plate and engaging him about it. To me, the letter seems to be nothing more than a glorified petition saying "hey you shouldn't say that" And given enough people who agree Suddenly we don't really have the freedom to say that. Or in other words, at what point do the repercussions of speech get so extensive where its really no different from saying "nope, you don't have the freedom to say that"
All freedom of speech does is say that the government will not prevent you from speaking, nor punish you for doing so (within certain constraints). So if you want to say disgusting things, you're welcome to do so. You just better be willing to live with what happens.
He's a douchebag and clearly said that any soldiers who were against the war weren't real soldiers, because, you know, they thought for themselves instead of listening to the words the Right fed to them.
On the other hand, Limbaugh also has that right to free speech like every one of us. Douchebag or not, he probably was within his right to do that.
So in closing- douchebag, but he has the right to say what he wants as well as the soldiers.
I'll say this again - freedom of speech is not freedom from the repercussions of speech. Yes, Rush has every right to say what he wants. But that doesn't mean he can't get called on his bullshit.
The problem I see it though, is that they're not really calling him on his bullshit though. They're not stepping up to the plate and engaging him about it. To me, the letter seems to be nothing more than a glorified petition saying "hey you shouldn't say that" And given enough people who agree Suddenly we don't really have the freedom to say that. Or in other words, at what point do the repercussions of speech get so extensive where its really no different from saying "nope, you don't have the freedom to say that"
not that I'm saying that's what's happening here. I'm just attempting to take these repercussions to their logical, but extreme conclusion.
Even taken to that extreme it isn't going to prevent them from being said or actively prevent speech from occurring. Otherwise how is it the Nazi's marched in Skokie? This isn't even really a repercussion. It's members of Congress using their right to freedom of speech in order to call someone else a douchebag for their douchebaggish use of his right to freedom of speech. Noone has the right to not be offended. This includes people like Rush Limbaugh and his fans who are so outraged at this letter.
moniker on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
Ugh, seriously, can't there be a political issue (involving American politics and whatnot) anywhere these days without people resorting to "My party is smarter than your party"? You can claim the Left has stuff that's more "fact-based" and "level-headed" than the crazy, crazy Right, but you can't prove it. Just like I couldn't prove that the Right is more fact-based and level headed than the Left. Seriously, stupidity like that gives us stuff like widowson getting his viewpoint shit on because people immediately label what he says as neo-conservative fascism. This is a debate (albeit on the internet), so for the sake of anything you consider holy, just let that pointless debate drop, people, and reply with more than "Your guys/opinions are stupid."
Anyway, on to the actual issue. Some people like Limbaugh, some people hate him. I have no idea what the actual truth of the matter is (I think it's possible people took things out of context, but it's also possible said something he didn't intend or, even worse, said what he intended and it was just offensive and stupid), but does it disturb anyone else that these big Congressional names are not acting as citizens? Is the letter from Harry Reid, American citizen, or from Harry Reid, Majority Leader, United States Senate?
Free speech is great, but when you're doing it on my time (our taxes pay for his offices and such) and on goverment letterhead (which, hey, I helped pay for with my taxes too!), it'd better be something actually related to running the fucking nation. Wait, what was that, it's just a partisan pissing contest? Reid probably personally knows people in his own party who've been proven to say worse things than what Limbaugh is accused of but only whips out a petition against Limbaugh. I've got no issue with Reid calling out Limbaugh personally, but he's not, he's using his political standing to try directly influence the life of a private citizen. Doesn't it bother anybody but me that a politician is so openly a blatantly doing this?
Whatever the repercussions for Limbaugh (which should have nothing to do with government figures), Reid's the one who has actually misappropriated government resources and used a government position to try to strong-arm someone because of their (supposed) opinion. Limbaugh can talk on the radio all day long and I don't have to listen, but Reid is the guy trying to use a goverment position to suppress someone else's free speech (I'm not talking about any theoreticall Congressional action, I'm talking about Reid's personal actions and the actions of the other political figures who signed the petition). No wonder Bush's approval rating is still higher than Congress even though we've had Bush for 7 years now.
...did widowson seriously claim on the last page that liberal politics in the US (centrist to anyone else) are responsible for the sexualisation of children? Fucking hell. Bye bye, widowson's last remaining shred of credibility...
...did widowson seriously claim on the last page that liberal politics in the US (centrist to anyone else) are responsible for the sexualisation of children? Fucking hell. Bye bye, widowson's last remaining shred of credibility...
It's a pretty typical slipperly slope bait and switch thing.
Point out a HEALTHY liberty or concept espoused by the liberals, slippery slope it all to fuck, then practice it YOURSELF, then blame liberals for it.
Basically, "See look freedom is bad look what WE do with it."
After seeing what Limbaugh said, it really doesn't seem to me like he's saying that soldiers who don't support the war are phony soldiers. Instead, he's implying that all the soldiers who don't support the war aren't soldiers at all. Or is that what is being found offensive? I mean, it's retarded to assume that all cases of veterans against the war are liberal conspiracies.
Now, I agree with Limbaugh that we need to stay in Iraq, but it pisses me off that people like him have to resort to bullshit like this to make their arguments.
He's a douchebag and clearly said that any soldiers who were against the war weren't real soldiers, because, you know, they thought for themselves instead of listening to the words the Right fed to them.
On the other hand, Limbaugh also has that right to free speech like every one of us. Douchebag or not, he probably was within his right to do that.
So in closing- douchebag, but he has the right to say what he wants as well as the soldiers.
I'll say this again - freedom of speech is not freedom from the repercussions of speech. Yes, Rush has every right to say what he wants. But that doesn't mean he can't get called on his bullshit.
The problem I see it though, is that they're not really calling him on his bullshit though. They're not stepping up to the plate and engaging him about it. To me, the letter seems to be nothing more than a glorified petition saying "hey you shouldn't say that" And given enough people who agree Suddenly we don't really have the freedom to say that. Or in other words, at what point do the repercussions of speech get so extensive where its really no different from saying "nope, you don't have the freedom to say that"
All freedom of speech does is say that the government will not prevent you from speaking, nor punish you for doing so (within certain constraints). So if you want to say disgusting things, you're welcome to do so. You just better be willing to live with what happens.
Using the congress as a bully pulpit to target your political opponents in such a manner is rather dubious, even in such a case where he said something more undeniable or flagrant. At best it is a waste of time. Though I do suppose they could waste their time in far more negative ways.
The Sean Hannity Show, the Rush Limbaugh Show, and the Michael Savage show are each three hours long. So either people are tuning in for the full three hours - which means they manage to get three hours of entertainment per day out of hearing somebody bitch about liberals - or they're just tuning in for a few minutes on their commute to or from work, which means they just want their pundit fix and don't really care about what's going on in the news.
I listen to these programs frequently, mostly to hear from "the other side" because way too many people are content to read and listen to their own viewpoints. Of course, God help anyone who has talk radio as their only source for news/politics.
While Hannity's lips are tightly sealed around Rush's cock, Savage has called Rush out on his bullshit. At the same time, Hannity is urging Congress to do something about Moveon.org. The irony is crazy.
Ugh, seriously, can't there be a political issue (involving American politics and whatnot) anywhere these days without people resorting to "My party is smarter than your party"? You can claim the Left has stuff that's more "fact-based" and "level-headed" than the crazy, crazy Right, but you can't prove it. Just like I couldn't prove that the Right is more fact-based and level headed than the Left. Seriously, stupidity like that gives us stuff like widowson getting his viewpoint shit on because people immediately label what he says as neo-conservative fascism. This is a debate (albeit on the internet), so for the sake of anything you consider holy, just let that pointless debate drop, people, and reply with more than "Your guys/opinions are stupid."
Anyway, on to the actual issue. Some people like Limbaugh, some people hate him. I have no idea what the actual truth of the matter is (I think it's possible people took things out of context, but it's also possible said something he didn't intend or, even worse, said what he intended and it was just offensive and stupid), but does it disturb anyone else that these big Congressional names are not acting as citizens? Is the letter from Harry Reid, American citizen, or from Harry Reid, Majority Leader, United States Senate?
Free speech is great, but when you're doing it on my time (our taxes pay for his offices and such) and on goverment letterhead (which, hey, I helped pay for with my taxes too!), it'd better be something actually related to running the fucking nation. Wait, what was that, it's just a partisan pissing contest? Reid probably personally knows people in his own party who've been proven to say worse things than what Limbaugh is accused of but only whips out a petition against Limbaugh. I've got no issue with Reid calling out Limbaugh personally, but he's not, he's using his political standing to try directly influence the life of a private citizen. Doesn't it bother anybody but me that a politician is so openly a blatantly doing this?
Whatever the repercussions for Limbaugh (which should have nothing to do with government figures), Reid's the one who has actually misappropriated government resources and used a government position to try to strong-arm someone because of their (supposed) opinion. Limbaugh can talk on the radio all day long and I don't have to listen, but Reid is the guy trying to use a goverment position to suppress someone else's free speech (I'm not talking about any theoreticall Congressional action, I'm talking about Reid's personal actions and the actions of the other political figures who signed the petition). No wonder Bush's approval rating is still higher than Congress even though we've had Bush for 7 years now.
1. That "can't prove..." language is weak, no matter where it shows up. It is just as impotent and insubstantial in a political thread as a religion thread. Also, your "I have no idea...!" posturing does not make you look even handed.
2. This is a component of "running the fucking nation". Hiding behind the label of "private citizen" seems odd, as it is not like Rush (or anyone) exists in a vacuum. Of course other people have said things that are almost certainly worse. Those people aren't Rush Limbaugh, influential radio personality.
Ugh, seriously, can't there be a political issue (involving American politics and whatnot) anywhere these days without people resorting to "My party is smarter than your party"? You can claim the Left has stuff that's more "fact-based" and "level-headed" than the crazy, crazy Right, but you can't prove it.
No, I totally could, because I'd have facts. There are several issues where "the left" has objectively, rooted-in-observed-reality support for their position and the Right has, well, nothing. There are also examples of the opposite, but fewer in number and held by a dwindling fiscal conservative wing of the GOP for the most part.
Case in Point:
1. Global warming.
2. Single-sex couples as parents have been demonstrated as not causing any measurable harm to their children compared to heterosexual couples, and yet the Right continually claims the opposite.
3. Abstinence-only education is portrayed as more effective than mixed abstinence/contraception schemes, when it is only more "morally pure" and significantly less effective.
4. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and yet something like a majority of Republicans still believe that.
5. Evolution. How many Republican candidates don't believe in evolution? Three? Four? Bush has called it "just a theory" and said intelligent design is a valid alternative.
I could go on. There right answers to things, and at the moment the American left, despite being shrill, obnoxious, vacuous and ineffective, has more right answers on its side than the American right.
EDIT: Also, dude, are you prepared to make an even stronger statement about Congressional involvement in public speech on the MoveOn ad? Which actually got Congressional condemnation and a bit more than just a letter from Harry Reid?
Why is congress wasting time with shit like this? seriously? our government has nothing better to do than worry about what some moron said on air? Holy shit.
Yeah, it would be much better if the left mobilized it's own echo chamber of pundits to counterattack.
Pundits like... say... Jon Stewart.
And.. um... Jon Stewart.
And maybe Stephen Colbert.
And some more Jon Stewart.
They also have Al Franken.
*snicker*
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Michael Moore is a terrible person in person. I have not had the pleasure of Franken's company.
Hm, on all the interviews I've seen with him, he seems a lot more reasonable.
Oh, interviews. On TV, yeah, he's not too bad.
But he's a controlling, (mildly) obsessive, egotistical asshole in real life. A shitty person to work with or for. With a good heart.
Al Franken had a really awesome interview on Conan. That's pretty much the only stuff I've seen of his, though. Never listened to Air America or anything.
Using the congress as a bully pulpit to target your political opponents in such a manner is rather dubious, even in such a case where he said something more undeniable or flagrant. At best it is a waste of time. Though I do suppose they could waste their time in far more negative ways.
Hey, you know what I'm sick of? This particular brand of fucking immensely tedious faux-concerned finger-wagging. A bully pulpit is a prerogative of public office. Do you weigh in like this every time a lounge singer or talk show host gets awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
Posts
Unfortunately for Limbaugh, that's a transparent lie on his part. His argument was that he was talking about a single, literal phony soldier- but in the actual broadcast, he doesn't mention that guy until nearly two minutes after the "phony soldiers" (emphasis mine) remark.
He posted a doctored transcript on his website to "clear things up", which really doesn't help his credibility. At this stage he and his fellow right wing pundits have just shouted "Taken out of context!" as loud as they can without providing the context or proving their case. They just go on the attack against the "liberal media."
If you've been taken out of context, all you have to do is provide the context...
Media Matters has the whole sad saga on their website. And I don't care if you've been told their some kind of radical leftist organization, because all you need to do is read the actual Limbaugh transcript or listen to the record of that broadcast to see all the in-context douchebaggery of calling war veteran war critics phony soldiers.
I get what you're saying, but that sort of statement is what leads to a lot of people to Limbaugh. He's accused the left of not wanting to debate ideas, just silence the opposition.
It can *easily* be misconstrued to "We're going to tell you what you should hear and think for your own good" or "You're so simple-minded, impressionable, and childlike in your opinions that we'll form them for you" sort of elitism that solidifies the steryotype of the arrogant, controlling "Big Brother" elitist-intellectual liberal in the same way that talk of censoring TV/radio/music leads to the right wing fundie "shove Jesus down your throat" steryotype.
Liberal talk radio exists, but has failed. Asking why is a better route to go, IMHO.
Some people just like low taxes, the U.S.A., traditional famelies, and their faith and don't like seeing them unfairly critiscized. Some people don't want to hand controll of 1/7th of the economy over to governmental control (Health care) when it's shown it can't handle what it does control. Some people don't like seeing their kids sexualized.
Some people see the "socialist dream" in eruope and see a stagnant, dying society strangled with high-taxes and overregulation; childless and aging to the point where they won't have enough workers to pay taxes for their hideously expensive and unsustainable social welfare state. Some people don't get why the president of Iran is applauded by self-proclaimed liberals, when the punishment for homoexuality is death in Iran (why laugh at his "no gays in Iran statement? they die, if discovered!), while those who think gay marriage is a no-go are attacked more viciously.
They're not ignorant to think so. These are valid questions and concerns and should be addressed, not ignored.
Margaret Thatcher
Where the hell do people get that business is some kind of compassionate entity?
And boohoo, playing the persecuted right-winger card is so lame.
People aren't ignoring "the valid questions and concerns" if they are telling you how retarded some of the neo-conservative views are. Ignoring and speaking against are two different things.
That doesn't explain why they like to listen to right-wing radio - specifically, why they like to listen to people saying things they agree with without any substantive criticism.
Liberals don't get any pleasure out of hearing people say things they already know.
I have strong opinions, but I don't tune into a radio show just to have my own opinions parroted back to me by a dude with a deep voice.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Are you kidding? Visit the Daily Kos one day- 90% of it is a self-congratulatory circle-jerk echo chamber.
And I'm liberal as they come!
True, despite my severe man-attraction to Feral.
I'd argue that there's a fundamental difference between a talking points blog and a radio show.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm just saying that liberals can be as guilty of confirmation bias as anyone else.
So either they get the actual current event content, which means they're listening for a few hours and assumably entertained by the large proportion of "hur hur liberals are at it again" between news stories, or they don't care about the current event content and just want a few moments of "hur hur liberals" before getting to work.
Reading a blog like DailyKos means you're looking for an update on issues that are important to liberals. It's not really the same thing. You can find out updates on the latest political funding scandal, or the latest Republican who lied on TV, or what-not. There's actual content that you can rapidly digest over a cup of coffee. Yeah, it's self-affirmation, but it's not three hours daily of self-affirmation.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What, no Dennis Miller fans here? I listen to him on the way home, he has a very dry way of looking at things.
Jesus fucking Christ, I didn't know those shows went on that long. I used to think Orwell's Two Minute Hate was implausible, but it seems like all you have to do is put people in cars...
It isn't so much the self-affirmation that is the problem (well, still a problem) but it's the gross distortion of "the other side" that bugs me. When you have people like widowson genuinely believe what they're saying about the liberal agenda is a true, accurate and fair.
Which is, frankly, tragic.
The DailyKos, et al, get a little hysterical about "fascism" sometimes, but if you ignore all the emotional ranting and go straight for the substantive blogs, you'll find a more fact based, level-headed, even fair minded, observation of the opposing side than you'll find on the Right.
In respect to say... the full story, here's the full transcript.
And here's video of his response the next day. It includes an edited audio segment that includes the call where he said phony soldiers (he edited out the unrelated comment and his response regarding WMD's) and the statement where he describes the "phony soldier" he says he was talking about (which came immediately after the WMD comments that are edited out of that audio segment - you can follow along with the text transcript if you're confused - like Mr. Olbermann apparently was)
All that said, damn. He's ponying up an a matching 2.1 mil for the MC-LEF. So to me, the letter = lolz. Good results all around
Edit: Added link to video of his response the next day.
Backlog Wars - Sonic Generations | Steam!
Viewing the forums through rose colored glasses... or Suriko's Ye Old Style and The PostCount/TimeStamp Restoral Device
You do know that Rush put up a doctored transcript, right? That is not the full one or the original.
Rush put up a "doctored" AUDIO transcript. That was supposed to be the second link I posted. But I failed. And just closed the page. Hang on a sec, I'll get a link for it.
Here is is.
And , here's media matters talking about the AUDIO clip on this. They obviously put a negative spin on it, but look at the part edited out. And the rest of the words. OMG, they seem to be exactly the same as that text transcript I posted.
Backlog Wars - Sonic Generations | Steam!
Viewing the forums through rose colored glasses... or Suriko's Ye Old Style and The PostCount/TimeStamp Restoral Device
Very classy of him!
Forgive me for assuming mindless dittohead behavior on your part.
The problem I see it though, is that they're not really calling him on his bullshit though. They're not stepping up to the plate and engaging him about it. To me, the letter seems to be nothing more than a glorified petition saying "hey you shouldn't say that" And given enough people who agree Suddenly we don't really have the freedom to say that. Or in other words, at what point do the repercussions of speech get so extensive where its really no different from saying "nope, you don't have the freedom to say that"
not that I'm saying that's what's happening here. I'm just attempting to take these repercussions to their logical, but extreme conclusion.
.
.
.
That said, Limbaugh is a douche.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
I know the term 1984ish is thrown around alot
but jesus christ
I'd rather them be doing this than actively hurting us.
All freedom of speech does is say that the government will not prevent you from speaking, nor punish you for doing so (within certain constraints). So if you want to say disgusting things, you're welcome to do so. You just better be willing to live with what happens.
Even taken to that extreme it isn't going to prevent them from being said or actively prevent speech from occurring. Otherwise how is it the Nazi's marched in Skokie? This isn't even really a repercussion. It's members of Congress using their right to freedom of speech in order to call someone else a douchebag for their douchebaggish use of his right to freedom of speech. Noone has the right to not be offended. This includes people like Rush Limbaugh and his fans who are so outraged at this letter.
Anyway, on to the actual issue. Some people like Limbaugh, some people hate him. I have no idea what the actual truth of the matter is (I think it's possible people took things out of context, but it's also possible said something he didn't intend or, even worse, said what he intended and it was just offensive and stupid), but does it disturb anyone else that these big Congressional names are not acting as citizens? Is the letter from Harry Reid, American citizen, or from Harry Reid, Majority Leader, United States Senate?
Free speech is great, but when you're doing it on my time (our taxes pay for his offices and such) and on goverment letterhead (which, hey, I helped pay for with my taxes too!), it'd better be something actually related to running the fucking nation. Wait, what was that, it's just a partisan pissing contest? Reid probably personally knows people in his own party who've been proven to say worse things than what Limbaugh is accused of but only whips out a petition against Limbaugh. I've got no issue with Reid calling out Limbaugh personally, but he's not, he's using his political standing to try directly influence the life of a private citizen. Doesn't it bother anybody but me that a politician is so openly a blatantly doing this?
Whatever the repercussions for Limbaugh (which should have nothing to do with government figures), Reid's the one who has actually misappropriated government resources and used a government position to try to strong-arm someone because of their (supposed) opinion. Limbaugh can talk on the radio all day long and I don't have to listen, but Reid is the guy trying to use a goverment position to suppress someone else's free speech (I'm not talking about any theoreticall Congressional action, I'm talking about Reid's personal actions and the actions of the other political figures who signed the petition). No wonder Bush's approval rating is still higher than Congress even though we've had Bush for 7 years now.
It's a pretty typical slipperly slope bait and switch thing.
Point out a HEALTHY liberty or concept espoused by the liberals, slippery slope it all to fuck, then practice it YOURSELF, then blame liberals for it.
Basically, "See look freedom is bad look what WE do with it."
Now, I agree with Limbaugh that we need to stay in Iraq, but it pisses me off that people like him have to resort to bullshit like this to make their arguments.
Using the congress as a bully pulpit to target your political opponents in such a manner is rather dubious, even in such a case where he said something more undeniable or flagrant. At best it is a waste of time. Though I do suppose they could waste their time in far more negative ways.
While Hannity's lips are tightly sealed around Rush's cock, Savage has called Rush out on his bullshit. At the same time, Hannity is urging Congress to do something about Moveon.org. The irony is crazy.
1. That "can't prove..." language is weak, no matter where it shows up. It is just as impotent and insubstantial in a political thread as a religion thread. Also, your "I have no idea...!" posturing does not make you look even handed.
2. This is a component of "running the fucking nation". Hiding behind the label of "private citizen" seems odd, as it is not like Rush (or anyone) exists in a vacuum. Of course other people have said things that are almost certainly worse. Those people aren't Rush Limbaugh, influential radio personality.
3. How is Rush's free speech being suppressed?
No, I totally could, because I'd have facts. There are several issues where "the left" has objectively, rooted-in-observed-reality support for their position and the Right has, well, nothing. There are also examples of the opposite, but fewer in number and held by a dwindling fiscal conservative wing of the GOP for the most part.
Case in Point:
1. Global warming.
2. Single-sex couples as parents have been demonstrated as not causing any measurable harm to their children compared to heterosexual couples, and yet the Right continually claims the opposite.
3. Abstinence-only education is portrayed as more effective than mixed abstinence/contraception schemes, when it is only more "morally pure" and significantly less effective.
4. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and yet something like a majority of Republicans still believe that.
5. Evolution. How many Republican candidates don't believe in evolution? Three? Four? Bush has called it "just a theory" and said intelligent design is a valid alternative.
I could go on. There right answers to things, and at the moment the American left, despite being shrill, obnoxious, vacuous and ineffective, has more right answers on its side than the American right.
EDIT: Also, dude, are you prepared to make an even stronger statement about Congressional involvement in public speech on the MoveOn ad? Which actually got Congressional condemnation and a bit more than just a letter from Harry Reid?
Or is it just okay when Limbaugh does it?
They also have Al Franken.
*snicker*
Hm, on all the interviews I've seen with him, he seems a lot more reasonable.
Oh, interviews. On TV, yeah, he's not too bad.
But he's a controlling, (mildly) obsessive, egotistical asshole in real life. A shitty person to work with or for. With a good heart.
Al Franken had a really awesome interview on Conan. That's pretty much the only stuff I've seen of his, though. Never listened to Air America or anything.
Hey, you know what I'm sick of? This particular brand of fucking immensely tedious faux-concerned finger-wagging. A bully pulpit is a prerogative of public office. Do you weigh in like this every time a lounge singer or talk show host gets awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom?